List bundled framework IDs, coverage, source lineage, version, and the framework-pack digest.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| result | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations provided, so the description must convey behavioral traits. It implicitly describes a read-only listing operation with no side effects, which is clear. However, it does not explicitly state safety characteristics or potential side effects, leaving minor room for doubt.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Description is a single sentence listing the output fields. It is clear but slightly verbose; could be trimmed to 'List bundled frameworks with details.' Front-loads purpose well.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple tool with zero parameters and an output schema, the description provides a full account of the returned data. It covers all necessary aspects for an agent to understand what this tool does and what it returns.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
There are zero parameters, and schema coverage is 100% (vacuous). The description adds meaning by enumerating what the output contains (framework IDs, coverage, etc.), which goes beyond the empty input schema.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
Description clearly states verb 'List' and resource 'bundled framework IDs, coverage, source lineage, version, and the framework-pack digest.' Distinguishes from sibling tool 'get_framework' which likely retrieves a single framework.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'get_framework'. With zero parameters, the use case is straightforward, but the description does not provide context or exclusions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.
All five tools have distinct and clearly defined purposes: compilation, agent info, framework retrieval (detail and list), and verification. No overlap or ambiguity exists.
Every tool uses snake_case with a consistent verb_noun pattern (compile_disclosure, describe_agent, get_framework, list_frameworks, verify_result). No deviations.
Five tools cover the core capabilities of a disclosure compiler without redundancy. The scope is well-scoped and each tool earns its place.
The tool surface covers the full lifecycle: compilation, framework exploration, verification, and agent metadata. No obvious gaps for the stated domain.